Phi-features and the Modular Architecture of - UMR 7023 - CNRS

166
These considerations point to the relevance of Agree/Case domains for
[+person] licensing in the PCC. Assimilating the licensing to Case itself goes one
step further, proposed by Anagnostopoulou (2003) (cf. Baker 1996: 5.3). Repairs
of the PCC will provide good support to the hypothesis, for they eliminate it by introducing
a new Agree/Case domain. The matter is taken up again in section 5.9.
5.2.4 Datives
The last element to consider in the Agree/Case approach, and the least clear, is
the nature of the dative's intervention for [+person] Agree/Case relationships. The
following conclusions were reached in section 4.7 for French:
– Datives differ from full PPs in not licensing pronouns and visibility of the
DP within to various clausal relationships, including for the PCC.
– Datives do not control the agreement that nominatives, accusatives, and in
Basque, absolutives do, or undergo Case alternations of the nominativeaccusative
type. This may be attributed to their PDAT case/preposition,
which must yet allow them to participate in the PCC. 121
Boeckx 2008b: 98 note 4), and faces ambivalent Icelandic evidence (Boeckx 2003, ex. 24, Bobaljik
2008: 319 note 27, Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008: 271, 276 note 29). The notion overt
must include certain cases of zero exponence (Bonet 1991: 190, Albizu 1997a: note 8).
The probes that do not need to be valued proposed in the text are close to pure Case-assigning
probes (Albizu 1997b), but keep to Chomsky's (2000a) hypothesis that phi-probes drive the
Agree/Case system. Parameterization might be in phi-specification: nonagreeing probes might be
a minimal [phi] only (cf. Rezac 2004b) (cf. Anagnostopoulou's 2003: 5.6 for a not unrelated parameter).
A key issue that needs better understanding is 3SG nonagreement with low 3PL.NOM,
perhaps always attribuable to intervention: in English and French (Schütze 1997: 4.1.6, 1999,
Sobin 1997, Chomsky 2000a: 149 note 90, Den Dikken 2001, Rezac 2004a: chapter 5), Finnish
(section 5.6), Icelandic (Sigurðsson and Holmberg 2008, Kučerová 2007), Basque (Rezac 2006:
3.6), and Warlpiri (Perlmutter 1971: 91ff.).
The following sketches one possibility for the interaction of the internal Agree/Case system of a
PCC-immune pronoun and that of the clause. As in Déchaine and Wiltschko (2003), the pronoun
is built from a core N and a higher head Φ with interpretable phi-features. DP-internal
Agree/Case licenses at least the [+person] of Φ. Options from this point depend on whether the
DP-internal Agree/Case licenses all of Φ or only [+person], whether partial or full Agree turns
the DP into a phase (section 5.4), and if so, how (some of) their phi-features are transmitted to
the edge, by Move to [Spec, TP] or Agree with D (cf. Rezac 2008a on PPs). The outcome must
be such that the clausal Agree/Case system see some phi-features on the DP, which will be a goal
for Case assignment, even if already licensed in the DP and incapable of valuing the clausal
probe (cf. multiple Case assignment, McCreight 1988, Yoon 1996, Béjar and Massam 1998,
Rezac 2003; cf. notes 132, 140, 160). The result would look like hisGEN/himACC-selfACC, the possessor
with DP-internal genitive and clausal accusative, resolved in English according to dialect.
For pronouns invisible to clausal Agree/Case, see Rezac (2008c: Appendix); cf. Baker (2008:
109).
121 The opacity of datives to agreement varies across closely related varieties of Basque (Rezac
2008ab), perhaps Romance (D'Alessandro and Roberts 2010: note 1, Haiman and Benincà 1992: